3 ms·

My grandmother has earned it. She did a great job raising a family of 7, all of whom will miss her when she dies. She does not have a criminal record and is ver

by burfog 9y ago

My grandmother has earned it. She did a great job raising a family of 7, all of whom will miss her when she dies. She does not have a criminal record and is very unlikely to get one. The 3-month-old has done nothing of value. Most likely, he will be just typical. There is a good chance that he will be a loss for society. His parents can probably just make another kid, and that kid would be a lot less sickly. I think the conclusion is obvious. The octogenarian should get the organ.

dvt 9y ago
Your first-year-philosophy-student contrarian argument is cute, but it's pretty obvious that the grandmother can only gain 10-15 years out of the liver, whereas a newborn can gain an entire lifetime. Getting a transplant is about extending life. Choosing someone where longevity is maximized makes the most sense from a medical standpoint. Obviously it's also chosen based on moral "merit" where cases are less clear-cut -- say a 40-year-old rapist on death row vs. a 40-year-old family man and pastor. Again though, it's pretty obvious that a coin-flip isn't any good. Most people would choose the latter over the former.
- burfog 9y ago
  Your mistake is to treat a year of person X's life as equal to a year of person Y's life. Her 10 or 15 years is worth more, because we can already know that she is a good person. The young person could haunt us for decades. Also, why should we extend life? Well, some people are worthy of it. So again, my grandmother wins. I see no benefit the maximizing the value of random abstract people. Merely maximizing total longevity fails to distinguish desirable people from undesirable people. This is partly why death row exists; in that case we certainly aren't maximizing longevity, and we are declining the obvious choice to extend life. If maximizing life were really the goal, we could ban birth control or even force people to become pregnant. Past accomplishments count. My grandma has earned the organ.
- Natsu 9y ago
  You're choosing the goal when I thought the question here is how to set the goal in the first place. You can say to use a utilitarian standard, but that simply begs the question of whose utility, as these can be in direct conflict and in practice, people choose their own or their in group's utility. Also, even when we set up some political system to enforce this inequality, we often have ended up making a different concentration of power in the positions that actually run that system, destroying the very equality that was supposed to be created. Money is just one form of power and different kinds of power are generally convertible.
- matte_black 9y ago
  There is no need for relentless condescension when all you’re trying to say is what people consider “fair” should not actually be fair at all, but rather skewed to favor whatever world view they subscribe to. The coin flip is no good if you believe wicked people should not be held in equal regard to those who have done nothing wrong. But it is perfectly fine if you believe the only thing that matters is a truly fair outcome.

by burfog 9y ago

dvt 9y ago

Your first-year-philosophy-student contrarian argument is cute, but it's pretty obvious that the grandmother can only gain 10-15 years out of the liver, whereas a newborn can gain an entire lifetime. Getting a transplant is about extending life. Choosing someone where longevity is maximized makes the most sense from a medical standpoint. Obviously it's also chosen based on moral "merit" where cases are less clear-cut -- say a 40-year-old rapist on death row vs. a 40-year-old family man and pastor. Again though, it's pretty obvious that a coin-flip isn't any good. Most people would choose the latter over the former.

burfog 9y ago
Your mistake is to treat a year of person X's life as equal to a year of person Y's life. Her 10 or 15 years is worth more, because we can already know that she is a good person. The young person could haunt us for decades. Also, why should we extend life? Well, some people are worthy of it. So again, my grandmother wins. I see no benefit the maximizing the value of random abstract people. Merely maximizing total longevity fails to distinguish desirable people from undesirable people. This is partly why death row exists; in that case we certainly aren't maximizing longevity, and we are declining the obvious choice to extend life. If maximizing life were really the goal, we could ban birth control or even force people to become pregnant. Past accomplishments count. My grandma has earned the organ.
Natsu 9y ago
You're choosing the goal when I thought the question here is how to set the goal in the first place. You can say to use a utilitarian standard, but that simply begs the question of whose utility, as these can be in direct conflict and in practice, people choose their own or their in group's utility. Also, even when we set up some political system to enforce this inequality, we often have ended up making a different concentration of power in the positions that actually run that system, destroying the very equality that was supposed to be created. Money is just one form of power and different kinds of power are generally convertible.
matte_black 9y ago
There is no need for relentless condescension when all you’re trying to say is what people consider “fair” should not actually be fair at all, but rather skewed to favor whatever world view they subscribe to. The coin flip is no good if you believe wicked people should not be held in equal regard to those who have done nothing wrong. But it is perfectly fine if you believe the only thing that matters is a truly fair outcome.